User talk:John K

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4 /Archive 5 /Archive 6 /Archive 7 /Archive 8 /Archive 9 /Archive 10 /Archive 11 /Archive 12 /Archive 13

Note

I replied to you here, if you're interested. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 02:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)

The July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a long time!

I noticed your comments over at Talk:New Chronology (Rohl), & thought I'd drop by to say hello. The 'pedia has gotten so large our paths don't cross any more. -- llywrch (talk) 20:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I think I'm the only old-timer left. :-) -- llywrch (talk) 21:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Louise, granddaughter of Charles X

John, please go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Princess_Louise_Marie_Th%C3%A9r%C3%A8se_of_France where I tried in a mile-long explanation (!!!) to answer your question as to surname *d'Artois* vs *de France* for Louise Marie Thérèse, daughter of the duc de Berry. Regards, Frania W. (talk) 14:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Forbes

John you created an article called Lord Forbes way back in 2004. Should it not be at Baron Forbes? --PBS (talk) 11:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information, I did not know that. --PBS (talk) 12:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Formal warning

One more personal attack on me and I will seek to have you blocked. Sarah777 (talk) 21:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of celebrity and notable guest appearances in Doctor Who

There's a new AfD nomination for an article you've previously discussed. Please stop by to voice your opinions again. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 11:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Roman Empire

I have no argument with you - I am sorry that I don't still have the few books I found. My main concern is that many people today consider Charlemagne the fonder of the HRE for ideological reasons. I am aware that Otto looked back to Charlemagne as an antecedent but clearly he did so for ideological reasons. Myabe my problem is that there is no satisfying discussion of the meaning of these words in the context of struggles for legitimacy. MY fear is that most Wikipedia articles are naive realists and do not see things in their political context. They think that there is this real "thing" called the HRE and Charlemagne was in it, or he wasn't. When the issue is more complicated. Am I wrong?

I am willing to defer to your knowledge. But I am sorry that Johanna Kemp is not still around, as I also respected her knowledge. here is what she wrote on the matter:

I've removed all the references to the Carolingians, because they just weren't Holy Roman Emperors. It's not even arguable. They styled themselves either Roman Emperors or Emperors of the Romans. Their Empire was in no was organized like that of the later HRE, nor were their administration or institutions the same. The fact that some of what eventually became the HRE had once been ruled by the Carolingians is beside the point. The HRE arguably starts with Otto I, because it was under his rule that it began to take shape in the way we know it. The 'arguable' comes in because there is some evidence that Otto himself looked back to Charlemagne as a model. There is also evidence, however, that the Ottonians looked to the Byzantine Emperors as well. In any case, Otto is a much safer beginning point, although it was not till later -- AFAIK, not to the Salians, that teh title HRE comes into normal use. This means there is clean-up to do in terms of the Carolingian emperors, who will need to be changed to something else -- this is especially sticky, by the way, because the Carolingian emperors themselves seldom used the "Roman", preferring merely the title ' Imperator '. I've been wading through Carolingian legal documents all day, as it happens. JHK 02:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I could have cleaned it up, but I don't have the time. I used to contribute a great deal, and got tired of fighting lame battles. Also, since I didn't write the original errors, I don't see why I should clean up every piece of someone else's mess. It would be like going in and trying to fix the mess that is the Charlemagne article. Some of it is not bad, but it's misleading in many places. By the way, AFAIK (and I have to say I know a decent amount -- my PhD thesis was on the Carolingians), there is no current accepted authority that argues for continuity. Most of those arguments come from late C19 and early C20 history that tried to show a great continuous history of a German Nation. And I don't know of any reputable history that considers the Spoletans as anything more than interlopers. Althoff, who is perhaps the most accepted authority on imperial traditions and the Ottonians at the moment, certainly doesn't see continuity, except in some of the imagery and ritual. Even then, the Ottonians ignore the Carolingian emperors -- the look directly to Charlemagne. JHK 03:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that you could spend some real time on the article and revise it so that these points, to the extent you find them falid, are not just there but clearly explained?

I just do not think it is a simple matter of adding Charlemagne's name or not. If we add his name even if we use some nuanced terms like "Although not considered HRE by historians, Otto considered Charlemagne an antecedent" I am still concerned some people will just think that there is a real continuity where there wasn't, and that these names have simple meanings divorced from the politics of legitimation. That is why I feel that IF we put his name in the lead, we need to add more, not in the lead but in the body, about how various people's claims to being Holy or Roman were highly ideological and that the success of the Ottonian enterprise had as much to do with institutional innovation, or even more to do with institutional innovation, than with continuity with Charlemagne (or Theodosius!!). Is this a reasonable point? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not entirely satisfied with what you propose, in part because I thought I read - and John, i can SO easily be wrong - that Charlemagne refered to himself as Roman Emperor, but not as "Holy" Roman emperor. There are several variables here: the precise title used; whetheror not the Pope was inolved are just two. My preference would be to leave the intro as is, saying most historians consider Otto to be the first Holy Roman Emperor even though he id not use that title, because he was the founder of what would soon be called the HRE.

Then I would propose a section, either in the history section or before it, describing the power vacuum with the fall of the Western empire, and the fact that with its demise the Church was one of the few stable institutions. Thus, warlords who sought to establish institutionlized dynasties or regimes regularly refered to the Roman Empire or to the Catholic Church as props for legitimation. For exmple, Charlemage refered to himself as Roman Emperor ... and so on - just a paragraph or two about the environment which made certain moves available and appealing. Then something about how the Ottonians are properly considered the HRE not merely because ofthe invocation of Rome or the associaion with the pope, but because of the creation of new forms of institutionalized governance that functioned for over a thousand years. Request/proposal: could you write such a paragraph perhaps incorporating material written by JHK in what I pasted above, and then put it in the body? I still be ieve such a paragraph or two would do far more to educate our readers than just throwing Charlemagne's name in (or keepeing it out) as a sop to a partiular political position. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Louis XV

If you still care - which you probably don't - Louis XV was duc d'Anjou before his uncle and father died. -- Jack1755 (talk) 11:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Thanks for the explanation on Mary II and France! I would love to do a Ph.D. in history one day...

You're invited!

You're invited to the
Philadelphia-area Wikipedia Meetup
September 12, 2009
Time: 3 pm
Location: University City, Philadelphia

RSVP

(view/edit this template)

NOTE: The date and time of this meetup has been changed to accommodate other regional activities.

The purpose of this meeting is to finalize our plans for the Wiki Takes Philadelphia event. We'll discuss logistics, establish jobs, and coordinate with participating groups.

The floor will also be open to discussing other projects relating to the Wiki and Free Culture movement.

Afterward at around 5pm, we'll share dinner and friendly wiki-chat at a local sports bar.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Earl of Mayo

Please stop edit warring on this article. Why, exactly, do you feel this article is improved by a sea of redlinks? Sarah777 (talk) 23:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: wiki takes philadelphia

Please sign up here. Thanks. Mblumber (talk) 01:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

John. I see you apologeticness didn't last very long. You have just posted a personal attack on me; one which I removed as per advice from Chillum. Please do not restore it again. Sarah777 (talk) 01:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chillum actually said, "If when you remove a personal attack you are reverted, then do not remove it again". (01:01, 14 August 2009 in his talk page archive). MickMacNee (talk) 11:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ha. Wonderful. john k (talk) 12:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chillum has a less than 100% record in the judgment department. McNamee, your personal attack on me is not forgotten. Sarah777 (talk) 18:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah, you're the one who cited Chillum to support your actions. john k (talk) 18:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who the fuck is McNamee? Does he play for Celtic? Cos he's getting humped if he is. MickMacNee (talk) 20:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John. Because I agree with one piece of advice Chillum gives hardly means I need to share his religion, now does it? Sarah777 (talk) 23:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MackNamee, please don't write "f***" on Wiki, especially on John's page. He is most likely a refined person. A concept foreign to you I wager. Sarah777 (talk) 23:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with profanity. I'm not overly delicate about such things, so don't stop on my account. I will say that I'm generally not a fan of purposely getting people's names wrong, as you are now doing with MickMacNee and were previously doing iwth me. As to the "piece of advice" from Chillum, it was not at all what you said it was. He said you were free to remove personal attacks if you like, but that you should not re-remove them if somebody adds them back in. He was not advising you to remove personal attacks at all, just saying that it was arguably acceptable. To the extent that he was giving you advice, it was not to do something which you did in fact do - removing supposed personal attacks a second time when somebody has put them back in. john k (talk) 23:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You did get Masem's title-name wrong here [1]. I was out for the evening and thought it's be all over and done with. Disappointed to say the least. Tfz 00:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JK, sorry for misspelling your name; that was actually an error not deliberate. In your case. I think. I spotted your question re the Triangle of Civility. It was something I found on Chillum's page; a "how to" measure comments for their civility quotient. Copy of it on User:Evertype's page. Or there was. Sarah777 (talk) 07:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And Philly in September - that sounds damned inviting if you are stuck on a rainy rock in the North Atlantic! Sarah777 (talk) 07:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

personal page

Just a suggestion --- perhaps you would like to move your personal page User:John Kenney/Elephant (wikipedia article) to User:John Kenney/Wikipedia:Elephant. Since undoing a move is somewhat of a hassle, I'm not going to do it for you, just suggest it to you if you would like to do it. Honestly, I cannot envision this personal page ever becoming an article, but I can see it surviving under Wikipedia:Elephant. Take it for what it's worth. However whatever (talk) 21:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Novels - August 2009 Newsletter

The August 2009 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Alan16 (talk) 17:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re your second complaint

I did start marking the edits as minor; sometimes I forget. I shall try to remember. The way you used the word "seriously" in your admonishment could be construed as verging on uncivil. Please dont leave me any more messages.Willy turner (talk) 19:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Apologies for any incivility. john k (talk) 19:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian chronology

Bad indeed. In fact, there's a general problem which is that in most of our articles some editor has chosen a particular set of dates and we generally ignore the fact there are other dates. Thus we get someone asking how Sneferu's reign can have been over before he started building the Red pyramid, for instance. This is made worse by navboxes at the bottom of Pharaoh articles that allow for only one set of dates. Dougweller (talk) 16:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OR and apologies

A discussion about my archiving of your comments is ongoing at my talk page. Any feedback would be appreciated there. Thanks. Protonk (talk) 03:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MoS

this series of edits goes against the MoS. The MoS is clear - we use only last names (after first use of full name) and we keep the same use of names throughout. MoS requires "Cambridge" and only "Cambridge". Ottava Rima (talk) 17:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fraid I can back that up, even though it's technically incorrect. We do things the wrong way here, but any attempts to change that have failed. Good example: Lord Denning is at Alfred Denning, Baron Denning rather than something along the lines of Alfred Baron Denning of Whitchurch in the county of Hampshire. Gets my goat (although it was previously at Tom Denning, Baron Denning. Eugh.). Ironholds (talk) 18:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea about what MoS says, but if that is what it says, it is utterly incorrect about actual Wikipedia usage. We do not call Lord Palmerston "Temple," we do not call the Duke of Marlborough "Churchill" after 1689, we do not call the Duke of Newcastle "Pelham-Holles," we don't call Lord Castlereagh "Stewart." This simply isn't how any wikipedia article on a peer has ever been written. john k (talk) 18:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At this, you should consider that such articles were mostly started in the early years of Wikipedia, when MoS and NPOV were rather poorly developed, and that their creators are/were generally the same people. ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 21:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You claimed: "See for instance the featured article John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough, which referst to its subject as "Churchill" before 1689 and "Marlborough" thereafter."

Your actions instead did: this - "Cambridge was born" to "Alexander was born". You took a last name and turned it into a first name. Your own example uses a last name. Thus, you don't even follow your own example. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anglicanism on List of Christian Denominations

Can I suggest that it is abusive to reopen a discussion in the confidence that the consensus is unlikely to change, and to claim while advocating such a change, that you aren't going to advocate it? If you really don't want to advocate it, I would ask you to delete the comment; if you do want to advocate it, then you can again force the discussion, as you seem to want. However, it is entirely unclear just what your motive is. Can you please make it clear, rather than lobbing a grenade in and ducking away? Tb (talk) 07:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

User:Ottava_Rima/Persian_Empire - my condensing is half way done. I have not put up paragraphs for the lead (4), paragraphs for the term (2), paragraphs for the imperial system/explaining "shah" and the rest (2). Over all, it should be about 50k after those are added in and the next sections condensed. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The last two sections of your history look like what I would propose for the last two sections of my own. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attorney General for England and Wales

I've significantly rewritten this article, which I note you prepared the list of holders for. I've moved the list to a separate article for size reasons, and will probably turn it into a Featured List, but I can't find sources for many of the early office holders. Where did you find that list? Ironholds (talk) 22:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant, thanks. Haydn is unfortunately notoriously inaccurate, in regards to early dates and names, although he provides a good general guide to an office. If you don't mind I'm going to remove the early ones that I can't find any other reference to, at least until a copy of Haydn can be picked up. I've got an original at university, actually, which will be accessible in a few weeks. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 11:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks, Roger Davies ^talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rita Jenrette sourcing issues and claimed titles

I submit that Wikipedia does not always accord people the titles they claim, as with the members of this category [2]. My review of related Wikipedia articles dealing with pretenders led me to the language I used in the article, which I think is more consistent with Wikipedia's general practices than the less specific version (note the articles I cite on the talk page). Part of the problem with this article comes from the fact that Jenrette and her friends have repeatedly attempted to add exaggerated claims to the article; Jenrette herself at one point characterized herself as a "celebrity centerfold" in Playboy, even though there's no such thing, and recently has added claims about her career as a realtor that contradict all the available news reports and the public record. If her new husband actually is who she describes him as being, there ought to be a truckload of reliable sources, but so far all that have been cited are his own website and a self-published genealogy page. (Maybe I wouldn't take such a hard line if Jenrette and her partisans weren't so quick to fling insults rather than engage in reasonable dialogue about sources.) Hullaballoo, Lord Wolfowitz (talk) 04:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

universities & nationalism

John, if you'd have some time, please look at http://books.google.cz/books?id=VsFjlKKWn6EC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=&f=false

it shows very nicely why there is not possible to say Charles University is either German or Bohemian or Czech or whatever else. Hope this helps to understand. Please refer to page6 & page214 Ibrahimibnjakob (talk) 11:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, I've been watching...I don't get the point of that section either. I'll take another look. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)

The August 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of "Romania" in the lead of the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire article

Thank you very much for your support in that debate. Cody7777777 (talk) 18:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!

Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators, Roger Davies ^talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkpage of 'Parthian Empire'

Hy there, first of all I want to thank you for moving the article towards its proper name Parthian Empire. I think that the case was quite evident from the start. However you have forgotten the article's talkpage (which remains at Talk:Arsacid Empire). Could you move it towards Talk:Parthian Empire asap? Thanks Flamarande (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing that is bothering me. I was intrigued by the name "Arsacid Empire" so I took a look around. I remembered an ancient empire (a major power of the east) which invaded ancient Greece, won (but also "lost") the battle of Thermopylae and after some centuries was invaded and conquered by Alexander the Great. What was it called again? Persian Empire (as in Persian wars)?

English is not my mother language but I do know what 'common name' means. It means use the names taught in school, written in books, and shown in the History Channel. 'Achaemenid Empire' is not the common name, 'Persian Empire' is the common and even famous name of this nation.

Should I follow the previous procedure (propose a move on the article's talkpage as I did with the Parthian Empire, wait for the opinion and votes of other users, etc) or is there some procedure to bring this issue to the attention of "higher" authorities? Flamarande (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC) PS: I find this issue very troubling and I'm sorry for being blunt and honest but: what the hell is going on in Wikipedia?[reply]

The talkpage, don't forget the talkpage, please. Flamarande (talk) 15:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One simply can't argue against tireless preachers. I stated my argument (simple common use) at Talk:Persian Empire. As far I can judge this matter the 'other side' defends more or less that "the name 'Persian Empire' can possibly be used by a handful of nations and therefore should not exist as a seperate article" (conviently it's a redirect towards Achaemenid Empire - if the other side were true to their arguments it would have to lead to a disimbigation page).

The fact and arguement that in common use 'Persian Empire' clearly applies to a single state was simply avoided again and again to a frightening degree. I placed a proper move request at the Achaemenid Empire's talkpage and I believe that I have done my duty already. Flamarande (talk) 19:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Sigh) I believe that common use (and common sense) is going to lose this case. Noone is putting in question that 'Persian Empire' is the common name for that state (besides Ottava but IMHO he is clearly a fool, a chameleon, and a lawyer). They are just avoiding the issue completly and defending that 'Achaemenid Empire' is a more precise name which will avoid any possibility of confusion. One only has to ignore that the average reader probably never heard that name at all (as all English mass media is quite happy in using 'Persian Empire').

I have no doubts whatsoever that the veredict will be a 'No consensus' ruling. So be it; Wikipedia will be the loser in the end but it isn't our fault. A likely side-effect is that no article with the title 'Persian Empire' will be created. A 'listing of all the historical states' is utter nonsense as the common use of that name designates a single state.

I managed to rescue 'Parthian Empire' but failed to do likewise with the 'Persian Empire'. We will have to lick our wounds, keep a careful watch over the articles, and hope that an increasing number of ppl start to question the name issue. It will probably take a couple years but the Persian Empire will rise again :). Flamarande (talk) 11:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"ref name"

Hi John, I see you're still fighting the good fight on the Byzantine Empire article...whenever I get bogged down in something like that I remind myself that even real-world academia is full of pointless black holes. Oh well. I was wondering if you had ever come across "ref name" template, and what you thought of it...I have been ignoring it for years but these recent edits pushed me over the edge. Are there actual real referencing systems like that, or is this one of those things made up for Wikipedia? This seems totally bizarre to me. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I don't know either, other than removing them whenever I see them, but someone will just add them back, I'm sure. Oh well. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MILHIST admins

Hi. Since you're an admin and a member of the Military History WikiProject, feel free to list yourself here. Cheers, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Takes Philadelphia

You're invited to the
Wiki Takes Philadelphia
October 4, 2009
Time: 12 pm
Location: Drexel Quad (33rd and Market)
University City, Philadelphia

RSVP

(view/edit this template)

Wikipedia Takes Philadelphia is a photo scavenger hunt and free content photography contest to be held all around Philadelphia aimed at illustrating Wikipedia articles.

Scheduled for Sunday, October 4, 2009, the check-in location will be at the Drexel University quad (between Chestnut and Market, 33rd and 32nd) at noon, and the ending party and photo uploading (location to be announced) will be at 6 PM. To reach the Drexel quad, walk south from Market Street at 32nd Street into the campus.

Register your team here

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mysore and Coorg FAC

Hi John, It's been a year (or two) since we last interacted on an Indian-history related discussion ... Your feedback at History of Mysore and Coorg FAC is greatly appreciated. Feel free to be completely honest. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 02:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All the issues (except additional alt-text that I will be adding in bits and pieces during the day) have now been dealt with. I welcome comments from you at the FAC review or on the article talk page. Thanks! Fowler&fowler «Talk» 15:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for peer review

Hi John, I'm looking for good editors to conduct a peer review of an article I'm thinking of submitting as a featured-article candidate. It's 1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramla. In particular, I'd be interested to know whether there are any factual errors, glaring omissions of key sources or significant points of view, and whether it's a fair overview.

If you have time to look at it, even if it's just a glance, it would be most appreciated. If it's inconvenient, please feel free to ignore this request. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)

The September 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Visit me?

Hello John! You are cordially invited to my user page for a little visit if you would like to know my basic ideas and opinions about when to use English (pre-1900) and when not to (post-1900). I think our stances might actually coincide pretty well. It feels important to me that we understand each other, at least, though we may agree to disagree at times. Sincerely, SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

East German FMs

Dear John, can you keep an eye on the East German Foreign Ministers situtation. Another editor removing these from the German FMs has appeared now. Thanks! Str1977 ^(talk) 08:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. President

Hello, President Kennedy. I was editing an article about a sports star when another editor informed me that listing the baby's name was in violation of Wikipedia policy, WP:BLPNAME. I was shocked because I did not know of this policy.

I looked at Family of Barack Obama. BLPNAME says that non-notable children must not be named. President Obama's children have been noted as non-notable in their AFD. There are 2 choices that follow policy:

1. Declare the children as notable.

2. Declare they are not notable and remove their names. So the wording might read "President Obama and the First Lady have two children, XXXXX and XXXXXX.

I don't care which. However, violating policy is wrong. With all the press about them, #1 might be the logical choice but, again, I don't care.

What do you think, President Kennedy? PresChicago (talk) 05:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

Can you please look at the sourcing in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mandell Creighton/archive1 on the British Historian Mandell Creighton. I have some concerns. Regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 16:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

action needed

Dear administrator, Please do some administering at the WP:RFPP board to unprotect Malia Obama. The basis for unprotect has been proven and should be done. Let me write the article. Mayor of Gotham City (talk) 03:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)

The October 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit on George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron

"we shouldn't be promoting incorrect forms, even if they are occasionally used by the ignorant" — Thank you, thank you, mille gratias tibi ago! — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 05:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Graham Greene.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Graham Greene.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. PhilKnight (talk) 12:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)

The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello John Kenney! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 13 of the articles that you created are Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to these articles, it would greatly help us with the current 7 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

Pierre Mauroy - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Michel Barnier - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Hubert Védrine - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Hervé de Charette - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Roland Dumas - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Maryon Pittman Allen - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Richard Alan Cross - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Jean François-Poncet - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
György Lázár - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Jan Krzysztof Bielecki - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

More...
11. Czesław Kiszczak 12. Oleg Lobov 13. Lê Khả Phiêu

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 16:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)

The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of British government pages

I created Conservative Government 1979-1997, spanning both Thatcher and Major, which is too big. Tryde broke that up by general election (it appears) at 1983, 1987, 1990 and 1992. List of British governments divides it into 1979-1990 and 1990-1997, both of which redirect to my first page, which I've just proposed for deletion. What, in your opinion, are the appropriate points of division? Choess (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The current series is split at the Thatcher resignation as well as at elections. Looking at the precedents on List of British governments, I'm inclined to lump them back into 1979-1990 and 1990-1997, but I'd be grateful for a second opinion. Choess (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll drop a note and ask Tryde, but I don't think this is terribly controversial—s/he seems to be the only other person actively working on them. Choess (talk) 02:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)

The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Memphis

Hey john: Old topic of discussion, but I'd like to get Memphis as a dab page instead of its current position as a redirect to Memphis, Tennessee. If you could give your opinion at Talk:Memphis, I'd be very grateful. I need somebody to comment before I get WP:BOLD. Cheers! Night w (talk) 03:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom GA review

A review to see if Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom meets Wikipedia:Good article criteria has started, and has been put on hold. Suggestions for improvement are at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/GA2, and are mainly to do with coverage and neutrality, and building the lead section. Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is one of our most high profile and popular articles, attracting an average of over 11,000 readers every day. You have made more than 20 edits to the article, and so you might be interested in helping to make the improvements needed to get it listed as a Good Article. SilkTork *^YES! 12:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sporcle

Ha, I just realized how many times I've encountered you on Sporcle! I guess that's not surprising, it seems like the kind of place Wikipedians would enjoy. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evangelical Church in Germany

I'm not sure you noticed but there is again a discussion going on whether evangelische kirche in deutschland should be translated or not. I'm a little bit fed up to be honest. another user changed the name of the ekd article and all its member churches. they all appear under the german name now. he did that without giving any reason, calling it bald, but wants now justification for undoing his move (see Evangelical Church in Central Germany). first he said that evangelical should be translated as protestant and sold the german form of the word as a kind of compromise/solution. Now he and an other user say kirche or landeskirche are "concepts" that can't be translated. I think you wre right to point out that several churches in the English speaking world are called the same way. maybe you want to have a look at the discussion? --Mk4711 (talk) 20:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know wikipedia rules that well. In the case of the North Elbian Evangelical Lutheran Church: Would it be okay to move it back to the English name? There isn't much of a discussion there. Or would that be an edit war? I've already undone the move and then it was moved again by motroos. Probably it's better to find a general solution on the EKD discussion page. I just don't really understand what we are waiting for. I guess you know because you are an administrator (I think you are). --Mk4711 (talk) 15:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now another user has taken the initiative... You are right. This really is madness. Maybe I should move United States of America to Estados Unidos, without any prior discussion of course. I'll call that "bold" as motroos did... And then I'll ignore all the reasons for moving it back. That's apparently the way it works. --Mk4711 (talk) 17:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)

The February 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, John K. You have new messages at Mk4711's talk page.
Message added 20:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Mootros (talk) 20:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited to Wikipedia Takes Philadelphia

You're invited to the
Wiki Takes Philadelphia
April 11, 2010
Time: 12 pm
Location: Drexel Quad (33rd and Market)
University City, Philadelphia

RSVP

(view/edit this template)

Wikipedia Takes Philadelphia is a photo scavenger hunt and free content photography contest to be held all around Philadelphia aimed at illustrating Wikipedia articles.

Scheduled for Sunday, April 11, 2010, the check-in location will be at the Drexel University quad (between Chestnut and Market, 33rd and 32nd) at noon, and the ending party and photo uploading (location to be announced) will be at 6 PM. To reach the Drexel quad, walk south from Market Street at 32nd Street into the campus.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title. DrKiernan (talk) 09:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})[reply]

Coordinator elections have opened!

Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monarchy of Canada -- your opinion sought

Hi.

Please have a look (as an editor who seems interested in the article) at Monarchy of Canada, where there is currently some disagreement about wording in the lead. Thanks. -- 205.250.72.215 (talk) 20:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)

The March 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV

For a great many years there has been an almost-loophole at this policy "cite facts, including facts about opinions, but not opinions themselves." I have always interpreted this to mean that a verifiable account of someone's view is encyclopedic. However, some people read this to mean that Wikipedia should emphasize facts, not opinions. And opinions = views. I think this line of thinking leads to a contradiction in the policy (that we must include all significant views from reliable sources) and undermines the dictum, "verifiability, not truth."

The problem is, there is a user, user:Zaereth who states excplicitly on his user page that he is opposed to our NPOV policy and wishes to change it. And he has been trying to edit the "loophole" I mention above to mean that we should strive to present the truth. He has teamed up with user:QuackGuru who is claiming that there is another policy called "state facts accurately" which he believes means that certain claims do not have to be attributable to any source (since they are "facts" - i.e. a total subversion of "verifiability, not truth."

Currently, the discussion is happening on the bottommost sections of the talk page (there was a convenience break). I think the discussion really could benefit from the input of experienced editors with real institutional memory and I am asking that you consider participating in this discussion until this issue at NPOV is satisfactorally resolved. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 13:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slrubenstein, please strike all your false statements you made against me. QuackGuru (talk) 16:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

QuackGuru, please don't use my talk page to communicate with people who are not me. john k (talk) 17:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough,thanks for contacting me, Slrubenstein | Talk 22:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

favor

Can you comment here: [3] and in the next section, which is entitled Comment? I am asking you to comment solely on policy, not content. This discussoon sorely needs the cmments of others who really know policy. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 09:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of William Cavendish, 5th Duke of Devonshire

An article that you have been involved in editing, William Cavendish, 5th Duke of Devonshire, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Cavendish, 5th Duke of Devonshire. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Yappy2bhere (talk) 23:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC) [reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)

The April 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emperor Dom Pedro II of Brazil peer review

Good morning, John! A friend and colaborator of mine requested a peer review on Pedro II of Brazil with the goal of nominating the article to Featured. If you have any interest or spare time, could you take a look in it and share your thoughts? Since I saw you in its talk page, I thought you would like to help. Thank you for your time! Regards, --Lecen (talk) 13:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)

The May 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've Been Mentioned

It was suggested to me that I note for you that I mentioned an edit of yours in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Herostratus 2. You were not singled out for any particular reason, and I found nothing particularly problematic with your edit in question, at least in terms of being a ground for you being recalled as an admin. Sorry.--Milowent (talk) 18:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LII (June 2010)

Front page
Project news
Articles
Members
Editorial

Project news

Catch up with our project's activities over the last month, including the new Recruitment working group and Strategy think tank

Articles

Milhist's newest featured and A-Class content

Members

June's contest results plus the latest awards to our members

Editorial

LeonidasSpartan shares his thoughts on how, as individual editors, we can deal with frustration and disappointment in our group endeavour

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

King James

I am reposting here a response to your comments on the James VI article: George I was not a "King" of Hanover, merely an Elector, the Kingdom of Hanover was not created until 1814 . And to your earlier point regarding Edward VII as Prince of Wales, that title is an honorific of the heir to the throne of England, much as the title Duke of Rothesay is to the Monarch of Scotland, neither are titles of sovreignty, as indeed neither was the position of Elector in the Holy Roman Empire, a vassal to the Emperor. As to your insinuation that Scotland was a marginal backwater during this time is just another example of the sort of faux history perpetuated by various English commentators, and is a racist slur that the Scots have endured ever since the union of the crowns. Furthermore, King Jamie did return to Scotland in 1617 in an attempt to harmonise the structures of the two very different churches within his realms, he also continued to speak in Braid Scots, . As to your point that as King of Scotland, King James had no influence in Europe, why was he given the hand of Anne of Denmark, daughter of one of the arguably most powerful monarchs in Northern Europe, Frederick II of Denmark? And to cap it off, a quick google search returned 118,000 for "James VI of Scotland", yet just 92,900 for "James I of England". Brendandh (talk) 17:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC) Brendandh (talk) 07:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vichy France

Bonjour John K:

In the discussion[4] concerning the inclusion of "Israël" (!!!!!) in the territorial "possessions" of France or under its protection or whatever in WWII, I suggested removing the list of such which was added to the infobox this past May 29[5], and which is rather confusing as things were not that clear cut in the period 1940-1944, and were changing, with, for instance, governors of certain territories changing side or being replaced or, as the case was with Japanese-occupied Indochina which is difficult to put into the category of Possessions constituents, with, to boot, listed in their modern names, which makes the list totally incompréhensible for that period.

Hoping this long sentence makes sense to you, as this is the best I can do being in a rush in the middle of a heatwave and not taking the time to re-read my prose.

Cordialement, --Frania W. (talk) 13:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AUSTRIA-HUNGARY IN WW1

Go to the talk page of the Austria-Hungary article. Do you try to dipute the historic fact that the Eastern front of Entente was Collapsed by Central powers in ww1? Read about that: [[6]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stubes99 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blablaaa

Hi you obviously have a working knowledge of User:Blablaaa there is a discussion Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Blablaaa you might be interested in commenting on.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rioni of the City of Rome

There is a discussion on whether articles on the rioni of the City of Rome should follow the naming convention for Italy, or should be treated differently. I have notified you as you were previously involved in the discussion on a Naming convention for Italian cities. Please feel free to add your comments at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2010/July#Italy: rioni of Rome. Skinsmoke (talk) 09:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate Succession.....

Sorry. I didn't mean to muddy the waters. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WQA

Hello, John K. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Phoon (talk) 22:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on cities proper list

We definitely need to have more people involved in the discussion so we can hash out how best to define the list. A formal RFC is probably not needed at this time. The better course of action may be to not rebut every point as this seems to just generate endless walls of text. --Polaron | Talk 13:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism Warning

This is the only warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to List of cities proper by population, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Removing the (in this case United Nations) definition for scope and content of a list, along with all the references, is an egregious act of vandalism. The fact that this act is perpetrated by an administrator who should be familiar with Wikipedia policies, exacerbates this act. This will be your only warning. BsBsBs (talk) 18:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Duchy of Tuscany

Hello, John K. You have new messages at Laurinavicius's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIII (July 2010)

Front page
Project news
Articles
Members
Editorial

Project news

New parameter for military conflict infobox introduced;
Preliminary information on the September coordinator elections

Articles

Milhist's newest featured and A-Class content

Members

July's contest results, the latest awards to our members, plus an interview with Parsecboy

Editorial

Opportunities for new military history articles

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About Tavolara

This is an answer about your doubt. I'm not able now to provide any references, but I'll look for. Bye! --Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 12:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Empire map

Hello. I have seen your irks about the Spanish empire map, and I would like to comment you some issues:

Firstly, the sovereignty is applied rather to the capability to control a territory that to subduing peoples, hereby the sovereignty can apply also to unpopulated areas.

In commons here, I put the references to depict the map. I can assure that there has no been ridiculous double standard to shape the map, and I have tried to do the map the most suitable to the references, following the policies of wikipedia. Maybe you should have read these references before suggesting that the map is depicted arbitrarily.

The problem of locating the Spanish presence in North America was a motive of uncertainty a year and a half ago, when I depicted the map. If the map had to be based on references, I could not invent where it seemed that the Spanish could have controlled the territory in my particular criterion, but I had to find references, well then, I found it with the Treaty of Adams-Onís.

In the south it was clear that the Spanish established a defensive line in order that the Mapuche did not enter into the territory of the viceroyalty. In fact in Chile there is a region that is called La Frontera.

The accomplishment of the map is not a perfect work, there are areas that they can lead to perplexity but, what am I going to do if the references lead to that point?, which I am not going to do is to invent what I come into my mind. Trasamundo (talk) 02:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monarchial titles for articles

I rekon they've got the correct idea at the George VI of the United Kingdom & Juan Carlos I of Spain RMs. A gradual change of articles & acceptance, will bring about overall acceptance. GoodDay (talk) 18:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIV (August 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIV (August 2010)

Front page
Project news
Articles
Members
Editorial

Project news

The return of reviewer awards, task force discussions, and more information on the upcoming coordinator election

Articles

A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles, including a new featured sound

Members

Our newest A-class medal recipients and this August's top contestants

Editorial

In the first of a two-part series, Moonriddengirl discusses the problems caused by copyright violations

To change your delivery options for this newsletter please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

J. Warren Keifer

You asked for evidence here. If I understood your question correctly, I think I found the eveidence and responded there. Mojoworker (talk) 20:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hesse-Kassel

If others don't read into it deeply (as I intially didn't), they may get the impression that you prefer Hesse-Cassel. GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Responded at my talkpage. It easier when the discussion is in one spot. GoodDay (talk) 15:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the following articles up for a move under your proposal:

I don't understand why these articles are titled this way to begin with. I know nothing of the landgraves of Hesse-Kassel, but the Wikipedian nomenclature is highly confusing to me. For example, nothing in William's article indicates he even was a landgrave, yet there were landgraves of Hesse-Kassel named William. So why is the article Landgrave William of Hesse-Kassel about somebody who was not a landgrave of Hesse-Kassel? Even when this is cleared up for me, I still think the articles should likely be moved. If I knew where they should be I'd have proposed moves already. Srnec (talk) 20:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NCROY

The supports and opposes seem to be running roughly even for your current proposal. I prefer the "King of X" formulation, and would have been there with you had I not been on a WikiBreak. Given that progress seems impossible while the current guideline is in place, what do you think of trying to get rid of the convention altogether if yet another reasonable alternative is nixed? -Rrius (talk) 18:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Milhist election has started!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team, Roger Davies ^talk 19:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition Party (US), type I and type II

I am new to editing, with an interest in 19th Century US and Southern history. Stumbling onto the Opposition Party, US article, I looked more deeply into Martis, then crafted my edit for the page. So, I get your objection to the earlier listing, and I want to do something about it.

A casual reader of Martis in his Introduction essay can easily miss the 'Opposition' party in the major party discussion and the 'Opposition' party in the Third Party section. They are not cross referenced to 'disambiguate', as they say in the wiki world.

Your essential point is precisely correct. Everything political was coming apart. Even the churches were splitting over slavery in various theological degrees. That's not as intellectually elaborate as European theological strands, but we do what we can with what we got.

I will want to revisit this subject again, as I stumble onto or re-read passages in monographs. Lots of confusion in the literature since scholars seem to lucky dip into Congress only as a sidebar to their main thesis...whereas, in my view,Congress, established in Article I of the Constitution, is 'the first branch' (book title). So Martis is my strarting point...Would it make sense to elaborate the article with mini-bio 'vignettes'? (Pardon my French.)

Do you still think the amended article should be deleted?

In my own little family, I blew up a couple of Thanksgiving dinners as a college kid by asserting there were EVER any pro-unionists at any time in any numbers south of the Mason-Dixon line, ever, well, white people. So I may be misunderstanding amidst forty-year-old flash-backs. But I gotta say, your "There was not and never has been such a thing as the "Opposition Party" as a formal entity in the United States" sort of has the same feel. "The Lost Cause", Sir, and all of that.

It's hard to prove a negative, and it turns out that there WAS a "last gasp" (Martis) effort among former Whig and American candidates in the South to organize a political party in opposition to the southern Democrats, without being painted as 'disloyal' to the South', lovers of blacks, abolitionists and promoters of servile (ala Haiti) insurrectiton. And your idea of making a more broadly conceived article of Southern opposition MOVEMENTS could even be expanded to the 'Cooperationists' opposing the Secessionists in 1860-1861. William Freehling documents that some of these really hoped that a delay would lead to reconciliation.

Anyway, since I think most of your points were correct, Could you return to the site and eyeball dates and narrative and such? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Duchy of Tuscany

Are you interested in pursuing this GA nom? The nominator appears to be inactive. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think I have time for such things. john k (talk) 00:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

I have nominated British Empire for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Zuggernaut (talk) 01:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aggressive tone

I find you aggressive, belligerent and antagonistic toward me, way outside of what should be in a normal debate about issues. That may be all my fault or all yours or a combination, we'll never know, I guess. I have really tried not to act that way toward you but to stick facts, as I interpret what sources say, sources that to me are very reliable and clear. But I find the debate climate repulsive and would like to stop. May I cordially suggest we avoid each other from now on? SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify

Would it be much of a hassle if you would add in whether you "Support" or "Oppose" the proposal to remove "philosophies like left-libertarianism" from the article. This is a very picky bunch that might not understand your intention, if it's not there in black-and-white. Thanks, if you can. BigK HeX (talk) 20:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John, I just left a clarifying comment over there addressed to you. Also, to illustrate what I mean, consider that the term "Christianity", like libertarianism, is also used broadly in English as well as specifically. In the broad sense, it includes Mormonism, but it is never used to specifically refer to Mormonism. That's why Mormonism is not included in the article at Christianity.

For the same reason, because libertarianism, though when used in the broad/general sense it includes "libertarianism socialism" and "left liberalism", the term libertarianism is never used to specifically refer to those ideologies, just like Christianity is never used to refer specifically to Mormonism.

Even though Mormonism is a variant of Christianity (using Christianity in a broad sense), it is not included in the article on the specific religion of Christianity. And, so, even though libertarian socialism is a variant of libertarianism (using libertarianism in the a broad sense), it too should not be included in the article on the specific ideology of libertarianism.

Agree or disagree, I hope that helps you better understand the point of the proposal. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand. In the first place, people certainly do use "Christianity" to refer to Mormonism, although perhaps less than they would for any other Christian denomination. In the second place, Mormonism is mentioned in the article on Christianity - there is a specific discussion of Mormon (and Jehovah's Witness) christology, for example. john k (talk) 21:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, people do not use Christianity to refer specifically to Mormonism. Mormonism is used to refer to Mormonism specifically. Christianianity is used to refer, much more generally, to all religions that worship Jesus Christ.

I don't see any references to Mormonism in that article. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you even mean here. Try "Latter Day Saints" for discussions of Mormon beliefs in Christianity. john k (talk) 21:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Missed that. I guess I better find a better example...

Okay, how about... Cat. Now, that term, in the broad sense, refers to the entire feline family, but the editors of that article chose to limit the scope of that article to be about just the domestic cat, presumably because they determined that the the domestic cat is the primary topic for "cat". I'm suggesting that "right-libertarianism", rather than the "libertarianism in the broad sense that includes libertarian socialism", is the primary topic for libertarianism. Again, if you google "libertarianism" in any context (general, UK, AUS, books, scholar, whatever) you will find that to be rather obvious. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC) --Born2cycle (talk) 23:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that makes more sense. I'm not sure why an article called Libertarianism can't deal with both meanings, though. I'm also unclear how you've determined that right-libertarianism is the primary topic. Let me add - many references to libertarianism are going to potentially apply equally to the broader and the narrower meaning. john k (talk) 23:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Do you agree that narrowing the scope of Cat to the domestic cat is not violation of WP:NPOV or WP:DUE, and that, by the same reasoning, narrowing the scope of Libertarianism to "right-libertarianism" is not a violation of either also? That's one of the points in contention.

If I could be convinced that your last sentence is true then I would withdraw my proposal. Will you agree to support my proposal if I could convince you it is false? To that end, please google "libertarianism" and let me know what percentage of uses of the term (which have to do with what it means - obviously a reference in a meaning-independent context like "List of words that being with LIBERT" would not count) in secondary sources (which tell us much more about actual usage than primary sources like encyclopedias) in the first few pages potentially apply equally to both the broader and narrower meaning? Let me know at least one (preferably a few) that you think qualifies, and I'll take a look. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The domestic cat is obviously the primary topic. I do not think it is clear that the one meaning of libertarianism is the primary topic, and I don't think a google search is a good way to determine such things. We should be looking at reliable sources, not raw google results. john k (talk) 00:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. We seem to agree that the issue ultimately rests on whether the political ideology sometimes referred to as right-libertarianism (but usually as just libertarianism, as in David Boaz' book) is the primary topic for "libertarianism". Yes?

But, if not google results in say books and scholar, exactly how do you look at reliable sources to determine which use of the term is "much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined – to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that term in the Search box"? --Born2cycle (talk) 17:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: I mentioned this discussion in an ANI that was filed against me here. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SCOPE

Do you think it's worth trying to get consensus to bump WP:SCOPE up to a guideline via RfC? --Born2cycle (talk) 00:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on your PhD!

Congratulations, Dr. John K! Just want to point out the good news comes on the birthday of Gandhi. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to chime in on that one. Well done! SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. john k (talk) 15:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Royal names

As promised, letting you know about my proposal to retitle Victoria of the United Kingdom (now at that page's talk). Also, what do you think about Stephen - should it be at Stephen, King of England (as recently moved unilaterally), given that we're told his true title was "King of the English"?--Kotniski (talk) 17:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Stephen, King of England is fine. "King of the Peoples" forms should be used for modern monarchs that consciously adopted such forms (like "King of the Belgians," "King of the French," "King of the Hellenes") but not, I think, for medieval monarchs based entirely on Latin forms not usually translated literally into English. john k (talk) 19:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I tend to agree with that.--Kotniski (talk) 06:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Junto and Barons

I am in the process of writing an article on the Army Plots of 1641, in that year the cabal that of which Pym was a prominent member was known as the Junto (and according to the OED is the origin of the term in English). I noticed that you had made a comment way back in 2006 on Talk:Junto. This is a heads up that I am going to propose some rearrangement.

It would also help me if you would express an opinion about the use of Baron and Lord in the text of an article Talk:Walter Hungerford, 1st Baron Hungerford of Heytesbury as a knowledgeable third opinion would hopefully have close the style issue. -- PBS (talk) 22:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Continuity from Constantine VI to Charlemagne ... dubious

Why do you think that? I'm curious ... Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ayyubid dynasty

User:Karimoglu has changed referenced information concerning the Ayyubid dynasty. Changing Kurdish to Turkish despite two requests[7][8] to use the talk page and ignoring evidence I posted on User:Karimoglu's talk page.[9] Can you inform this individual how to edit properly? Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Sardinia

I was wondering what you think about a three-article solution to the Sardinia problem: a survey article at Kingdom of Sardinia, an article on the Savoyard state at Piedmont–Sardinia, and an article on the medieval Papal creation at Kingdom of Sardinia and Corsica? I find the current article highly misleading. I was working on a lead at User:Srnec/Kingdom of Sardinia and was wondering what you think of it. (The bottom paragraph is a quotation of a GooglBook source.) If you have the time. Srnec (talk) 02:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LV (September 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LV (September 2010)

Front page
Project news
Articles
Members
Editorial

Project news

The results of September's coordinator elections, plus ongoing project discussions and proposals

Articles

A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles

Members

Our newest A-class medal recipients, this September's top contestants, plus the reviewers' Roll of Honour (Apr-Sep 2010)

Editorial

In the final part of our series on copyright, Moonriddengirl describes how to deal with copyright infringements on Wikipedia

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Princess) Henrietta (Anne) of England

I would appreciate your opinion about the proper name of (Princess) Henrietta (Anne) of England, see Talk:Princess Henrietta of England JdH (talk) 13:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010

Your Military history Newsletter

Project News: Editors for the newsletter, GAN backlog reduction drive
Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content
Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients
Editorial: EyeSerene sums up our "Five years of military history"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for restructuring vs. attack

Hello. On an article you have edited in the past Alternate_successions_of_the_English_crown and editor User:Hrafn appears to have more than just an interest in improving the content of Wikipedia at heart. He has (at least) TWICE made personal attacks http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAlternate_successions_of_the_English_crown&action=historysubmit&diff=399129636&oldid=399129494

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAlternate_successions_of_the_English_crown&action=historysubmit&diff=399132122&oldid=399130453

Admittedly, I also made a personal attack, accusing him of being more emotionally interested than encyclopedically interested, for which I was warned. There does not appear to be any warning directed towards User:Hrafn. His list of tags on the article itself DOES appear to have stepped beyond reasonable bounds(eight in all):

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Alternate_successions_of_the_English_crown_&action=historysubmit&diff=39913106&oldid=395132934. 41.133.47.252 (talk) 13:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

I went ahead and nominated this article for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternate successions of the English crown. Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you're invited

as a historian with an interest in European nobility, I invited you to take a look at these two articles, and the related information in the AfD debates. Both articles are related, need to be improved, and might benefit from your insight and particularly your knowledge about historical sources.

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Francis_Martin_O'Donnell

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vice_Great_Seneschal_of_Ireland

ReidarM (talk) 13:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate successions of the English crown

In regards to this article, might I suggest reading what Leo van de Pas states here[10]. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's your point, exactly? Do you think van de Pas is a reliable source? What are you arguing based on van de Pas? john k (talk) 15:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Leo points out, Edward did not ascend the throne due to his father being king of England. Instead he gained the throne through conquest. Making his legitimacy irrelevant and the article in question, based on a television program, pseudo genealogy. Leo also mentions William the Bastard(Conqueror) as an example that legitimacy is irrelevant when the throne is taken by force of arms. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get the point. Edward claimed the throne by conquest and as the legitimate heir-general of Edward III. Whatever his own claims, at any rate, if his marriage was invalid, then Clarence's descendants were heir to both of his claims, regardless of his own legitimacy. Such claims are not "pseudo-genealogy," because Warwick was obviously viewed as an alternative claimant to the throne; his sister Matilda was eventually executed in part because of her own potential claim to the throne; and the Earl of Huntingdon was considered as a possible successor to Elizabeth I in 1560 because of his descent from Matilda. One can, of course, make arguments as to why their claims were not valid, but it's not true that the idea that they had such claims is post facto "pseudo-genealogy." And, of course, van de Pas himself admits that the genealogical trail from Huntingdon leads us eventually to Michael Hastings. I basically agree with you that the claim that Edward IV was illegitimate has no relevance to who the king was, and, indeed, except possibly for some toying with the idea during Richard III's reign, it was never a major consideration at the time, either. But regardless of that, Clarence's descendants were viewed as potential claimants to the throne for nearly a century after Clarence's own death, and the genealogical line from him to Hastings is, as I understand it, pretty air tight. To the extent that van de Pas is an expert of any kind, it is as a genealogist (I find his site to be mostly excellent for genealogy, but it's self-published, so probably not good enough for wikipedia), not an expert on 15th century legal theories about inheritance of the crown. His opinion holds no more weight than yours or mine. And van de Pas is far too absolute about this. Edward IV, as I said before, claimed the throne both by right of conquest and by virtue of his descent from Edward III; Henry VII claimed it by conquest, by virtue of his own descent from John of Gaunt, and, eventually, by virtue of his marriage to Edward IV's eldest daughter. If the Yorkist claim had vanished into thin air at Bosworth, why bother marrying Elizabeth at all? Why execute Warwick? It's no use talking about de jure claims; certainly it's no use arguing that the reigning monarch is also the de jure monarch. If there's political support for a claimant, the strength of their genealogical claim is irrelevant - arguing against it on legal grounds is pointless. On the other side, since 1066 every claimant to the English throne has had some genealogical basis for their claim - Robert Curthose, Maud, Arthur, Bolingbroke, Richard and Edward of York, Richmond, Simnel, Warbeck, the de la Poles, Jane Grey, Mary Stuart, and the Jacobite pretenders had claims of various strengths and genuineness, but their claims of royal descent were important to their claims to the throne. Pretending that such claims were not notable because one can make an argument for the legal claims of the de facto monarch is ridiculous - it's not our job to decide who the de jure monarch was. john k (talk) 16:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010

Your Military History Newsletter

Project News: From the editors, "Military Historian of the Year", New Incubator, Black Project Report
Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content
Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients
Editorial: bahamut guides us through "Nominating military biographies for deletion"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth II

I share your concerns at that article. I regret having supported the last RM & have been having second thoughts about the article's intro & infobox. IMHO, atleast 1 of the 3 areas-in-question should display the United Kingdom on its own. There's too much downplaying of the UK, in that bio article. GoodDay (talk) 03:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Royal label origins

Hi John K, I’m creating a new article User:Stephen2nd/Royal Labels of England, and I’m seeking opinions/consensus on their origins. re There are a number of anomalies, such as the difference between a ‘blue’ and ‘white’ label, in reference to whether there is a difference between ‘Heir apparent &/or presumptive’ –and- ‘Prince of Wales.’ These anomalies stem from the label argent given to Thomas of Brotherton &c, as heir apparent to King Edward I. Was this the origin of a white label? Were Thomas and his descendants Princes of Wales (Mowbray was descended from the earls of Chester &c) ? Also, can you clarify the relationship between the arms of Mowbray as Thomas’s heir, with the arms of Richard II? Thanks for your time, knowledge and considerations. Can you please reply on the articles talk page. (NB: I've also asked GoodDay & OperaHat) Regards Steve. Stephen2nd (talk) 13:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know anything about heraldry, so I don't think I can help. I do think that your draft needs to be much clearer on what the subject of the article is - it took me a while to figure out what you were talking about. Also, sources. Thomer of Brotherton was never heir-apparent. He was heir-presumptive to his brother, Edward II, for a few years at the beginning of his reign. He was never prince of Wales, nor were his descendants. john k (talk) 15:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most Interesting Man

I responded to you query (albeit slowly) with some ideas on the image. In general, I think it can/should be any of the ones where he's sitting at the table, making conversation and saying "I don't always..." or "Stay thirsty" Purple backpack89 05:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you still planning on posting a new picture? Just wondering Purple backpack89 20:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Albert II of Germany

Please request for a move before you move Albert II of Germany; I've reverted it. Also you might want to bring up the other King of the Romans who are under "of Germany".--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 10:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you prefer the current title? I moved it three months ago and nobody but you objected. Is it a totally procedural objection or do you prefer Albert II of Germany on substantive grounds? john k (talk) 17:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Time Person of the Year

Howdy JK. Good luck in trying to convince Mies that Elizabeth II's closer association with the UK (compared to the other Commonwealth realms) shouldn't be hidden (or IMHO censured). He's worked too long & hard across Wikipedia, to remove such things (regrettably, I supported such edits in the past) & he's not about to restore them. GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no illusions on that front. I keep hoping that if I keep it alive, other, previously non-involved editors will join the discussion and agree with me. I see now that Miesianiacal is actually the same person as Gbambino (I should have realized this sooner, I guess), which means that this has been a heretofore successful one-man crusade for five years or so now. Sigh. What made you change your mind about this, btw? john k (talk) 16:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One man crusade? You give me far too much credit. Please don't forget to share it amongst the other editors who've seen fit to put facts above personal biases, including, for a time, GoodDay (though, his opinion does shift on an almost regular basis). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've came to my senses. Royal weddings continue to be held in the UK. Elizabeth II continues to hang out in palaces at the UK. Her successor's coronation will be held in the UK. Due to her residency, the UK has no Governor General. Anyways, the Elizabeth II article, was my turning point. Along with the article's title being RM'd (which I now regret having supported), the 16 commonwealth realms has replaced the UK and 15... on both the intro & the infobox. I don't mind having British hidden on Canadian articles, Australian articles, New Zealand articles etc etc. But, I do mind it, when it's hidden from other areas. GoodDay (talk) 17:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was very impressed by yours of 8.17 on 2nd January. And the response from "Miesianiacal" at 2.48 on the 3rd sounded suspiciously like the towel. Jolly well done. Opera hat (talk) 03:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meilleurs vœux !

File:Tour eiffel feu artifice.jpg

Bonne Année 2011 ! --Frania W. (talk) 22:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nailed it...

And made my favorites list. Well done. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

United States disambiguations

In one of those naming guideline discussions, you said: "I suspect you will be unable to find very many places that are unique within the United States, but ambiguous with places outside it". I went looking for placenames with "(United States)" in the title, and was unable to find any towns or cities (but didn't look very hard - it was mostly political parties and military units). I did, however, find St. John's College (United States), which led me to Saint John's College, St. John's High School, and Saint John's University (also Saint John's). A bit of a mish-mash of comma and parenthetical disambiguation there, and some other disambiguation variants as well. Is there a standard in this area or not, and if not, what would normally be done? Carcharoth (talk) 10:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NCGN

Initial indications are that neither Dohn Joe's idea for mediation nor my idea to identify broad principles is going to be accepted. As I look through the various options at WP:Dispute resolution, I don't see any choices left... besides the last resort. I've never done that, though in retrospect it makes sense since I know the similar TV episode naming disagreement was decided by arbitration a few years ago. Might be time to review how to go through all that, eh? Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Last_resort:_Arbitration. --Born2cycle (talk) 09:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding was that the arbitration committee is extremely, extremely reluctant to take up content disputes. john k (talk) 17:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Empire of Brazil FAC is now open

Empire of Brazil is now a Featured Article candidate. Since you're part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Former countries/Empires bureau, your opinion (either as support or oppose) is welcome. Here is the page: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Empire of Brazil/archive1. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 01:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How to title an article

In order to address the argument that without specific naming conventions article titling would be chaotic and unpredictable, I've attempted to describe the process of determining a title that clearly shows that usually specific naming conventions are not needed. I'm asking a few select individuals to look at it before I open it for general review at WT:TITLE.

If you could take a few minutes to review it and let me know what you think, I would really appreciate it. Do you think we could incorporate this or something like it into WP:TITLE? Thanks. Here is the link: User:Born2cycle/how2title. Please leave your comments on the talk page of that subpage, User talk:Born2cycle/how2title. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New WikiProject Novels initiative

We have begun a new initiative at the WikiProject Novels: an improvement drive. As a member listed here, you are being notified. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels#5-5-5 Improvement Drive and Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Collaboration for more details. Also I would like to remind you to keep an eye on the project talk page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels. Thanks, Sadads (talk) 02:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History of U.S. city naming

I've started another subpage, this one about the history of the U.S. city naming guidelines and conventions. It's still in very rough form, but I thought you might be interested in looking at what I have so far. The last thing I just added was a new section on the individual history of page move proposals and actual moves of certain especially volatile city articles. So far I've only done Chicago. I think Boston, Philadelphia, New York City should be covered, perhaps Los Angeles and San Francisco. Anything else? Anyway, check it out. Thanks. Comments/suggestions or even contributions would be much appreciated. User:Born2cycle/USNChistory --Born2cycle (talk) 06:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note of appreciation for your comments at Talk:Elizabeth_II

Hey John,

Just wanted to say that I really appreciate your comments at the EII article. It seems so brazenly obvious to me that listing out countries as the current lead does is wrong headed. I couldn't agree more with your " Mentioning all sixteen realms is the violation of NPOV, because it violates due weight" comment.

I don't really understand the mindset of the opposition here. I figure they are either hyper-focused on legal nature of the monarch, or they want to WP:PEACOCK the article by making EII sound as if she reigns over the world. Either way, I'm a little disappointed by how the RfC is going.... Best, NickCT (talk) 06:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to your message -

I largely agree with all your points.

re "Some of these people, I think, basically don't know much about the issue and find Miesianiacal's arguments superficially convincing" - It's interesting to note that if you go through the user pages of some of the respondents who are calling for maintaining the current lead, you'll find that some (e.g. User:Night w, User:The C of E) seem to display pro-monarchist/nationalist sentiments. Depressingly, I think "some of these people" aren't so much convinced by his arguments as they might simply share his warped POV.

As a side-note; I had a good friend once who was a fervent monarchist. I found the mindset rather fascinating. It seemed so anachronistic and out-of-place, and I think, in a way, my pal knew this and relished in the fact. He took himself seriously, though no one else did.

If we care enough to pursue this, we should probably cease bemoaning the void between our opponents' ears, and turn instead to determining practical measures to work around them. NickCT (talk) 07:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are obviously not going to get reasoned behaviour at the article for a while. Do you think we should ask for it to be fully protected in the meantime John? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LVIII, December 2010

Your military history newsletter – Volume LVIII, December 2010 From the editors • "Military Historian of the Year" • Discussions • The month's new featured and A-class content • Review awards Contest results • A-class medal recipients • bahamut teaches us proper usage of "Jargon and acronyms"
To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here. BrownBot (talk) 21:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anglicization of Portuguese names

John, I saw a message of yours written a long time a go at John VI of Portugal complaining about the name being spelled in English, not in Portuguese. Could you tell me what happened? If there was a discussion about it? Regards, --Lecen (talk) 12:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Baron Latimer/Latymer

Like you -- I was looking at the two pages.. Baron Latimer and Latymer -- Exactly what is the difference between Latymer and Latimer? If they are the same, why are there two different pages? Also, that would out these people whom are being claimed as the current de jure Barons as the barony remained in abeyance after the 4th Baron Latimer (John Neville) had no male heirs, until 1913, when the abeyance was terminated in favour of Francis Money-Coutts, who became the fifth Baron. He was the only son of the Reverend James Drummond Money and his wife Clara Maria Burdett, fourth daughter of Sir Francis Burdett, 5th Baronet, and claimed the peerage as a descendant of Frances, eldest daughter of the Hon. Lucy Neville, third daughter of the fourth Baron Latymer/Latimer. As of 2009, the title is held by the fifth Baron's great-great-grandson, the 9th Baron who succeeded his father in 2003. Any help would be greatly appreciated in this matter... -- Lady Meg (talk) 06:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Novels Collaboration for February

Thank you everyone who participated in the January Collaboration, it was quite a success with 5 new C class articles, 3 stub kills and several articles were removed from our backlogs. In support of the Great Backlog Drive, the WikiProject Novels Collaboration for February is going to help remove backlog candidates in the backlogs related to WikiProject Novels. Please join us, and help us wikify, reference, clean up plot sections and generally improve Novels content, Sadads (talk) 21:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are recieving this message because you are a member of WikiProject Novels according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Members

Style question about "The Hon."

I realize that this question probably belongs at MOS:HONORIFIC but I couldn't find anything relevant there, and I looked in the archives there and found enormous controversial discussions about such things and don't want to ignite a debate. I just want to know the correct way to present the honorific properly in the first line (not the title) of the article. (The style guide says not to use them "inline" but it is clearly the custom to present all titles, etc. once at the very beginning of the article.) So: which of these should the younger son of an earl be at the beginning of the article?

Rear-Admiral The Hon. John Smith
Rear-Admiral The Hon. John Smith
Rear-Admiral The Hon. John Smith
Rear-Admiral The Honourable John Smith
Rear-Admiral The Honourable John Smith
Rear-Admiral The Honourable John Smith

I assume that there should be links for Rear-Admiral (or should that be "Rear-Adm."?) and The Honourable, and all subsequent usage should be "Smith." Thanks for your help! Laura1822 (talk) 21:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say only the name should be bolded, but I'm not sure. john k (talk) 21:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011

Your Military history Newsletter

Project News: From the editors
Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content
Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients
Editorial: EyeSerene discusses "Writing neutrally for Wikipedia"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 16:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:House of Este

Are you content with my amendments to the House of Este article? Eddaido (talk) 22:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011

Your Military History Newsletter

Project News: From the editors
Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content
Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients
Editorial: Ed talks about real-world collaborations and how you can help

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Cairns, 1st Earl Cairns

Various sources (Cracroft's Peerage, 1911 Britannica, Men-at-the-Bar, etc) give his year of birth as 1819, not 1810. I have edited the article. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 06:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that I reverted your edit of the Treaty of Versailles

Sorry John for reverted your edit on the Treaty of Versailles. You were right, Belgium is not an "unofficial ally", but quite official. I reverted the edit back to yours - take care... Dinkytown talk 21:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo of Windisch-Graetz

Please check out Talk:Mariano Hugo of Windisch-Graetz. Because there has been a lot of vandalism (including puffery) in this article, some editors seem to think he is altogether bogus or that his position has been inflated. If you have info or sources that would help establish his bona fides you may want to weigh in. FactStraight (talk) 15:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, John K. You have new messages at Talk:Raúl Ibáñez.
Message added 21:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011

Your Military History Newsletter

Project News: From the editors
Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content
Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients
Editorial: Dank helps you see what article writers want from reviewers

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 03:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Simon Dedalus for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Simon Dedalus is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Dedalus until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011

Your Military History Newsletter

Project News: From the editors
Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content
Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients
Editorial: Buggie111 discusses neutral point of view

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011

Your Military History Newsletter

Project News: From the editors – Contest results, A-class medal recipients
Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content
Editorial: Hawkeye's thoughts on the article writing process

To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Latin American Monarchies task force

Hi, John. I sent a similar message to User:Domino theory but I have doubt he will answer. I would like to create a task force devoted to 19th century Latin American monarchies. How could I do that? Thanks, --Lecen (talk) 20:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited to the Philadelphia Wiknic!

This message is being sent to inform you of a Wikipedia picnic that is being held in your area this Saturday, June 25. From 1 to 5 PM or any time in between, join your fellow volunteers for a get together in the Azalea Garden, just behind the Philadelphia Museum of Art 39°58′05″N 75°10′59″W / 39.96801°N 75.183156°W / 39.96801; -75.183156

Take along your friends (newbies permitted), your family and other free culture enthusiasts! You may also want to pack a blanket, some water or perhaps even a frisbee.

If you can, share what you're bringing at the discussion page.

Also, please remember that this is the picnic that anyone can edit so bring enough food to share!

Smallbones (talk) 17:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahnentafels

Hi! You might be interested in this. Your input would be appreciated. Cheers, Surtsicna (talk) 12:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Great French War"

Proposed deletion of Great French War

The article Great French War has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hi, saw your comment on this article's talk page. Thought you might like to weigh in. LouisDesaix (talk) 15:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great French War

Great French War has been nominated for deletion here. I'm notifying you of this discussion because you commented on the issue on the article's talk page. Thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results
Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content
Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Finland and Spitfires
Op-ed: Fifelfoo and hunting for plagiarism

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 23:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lutheran World Federation

Hi, I just wanted you to know that I reverted your edit to Lutheran World Federation. It didn't seem necessary to me, since Church of Lippe is still a red link. If you had a good reason for making that edit, it would be helpful if you would provide an edit summary or comment on the talk page to clarify your reasoning. Thanks!! Cognate247 (talk) 16:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results
Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content
Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Zeebrugee and Afghanistan
Op-ed: WereSpielChequers examines RfA

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 22:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

British Chief Ministers, from 1660

Chief Ministers of England (1660–1721)
This stems from a suggestion which you made here five years ago. What do you think? It largely follows your list, though not entirely. Unfortunately I don't have any sources for it. BartBassist (talk) 23:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gradually adding notes to it, to explain my rationale. I will either remove or notate Belasyse and Pembroke. I think I have made it clear that Townshend was basically running things 1714–16, and that Halifax, Carlisle and Walpole were titular First Lords only; nonetheless, it seems clear that by this point the First Lord was considered the titular figurehead of the administration (as was the case for Wilmington in 1742, who was dominated by Carteret but is nonetheless considered titular leader), so I won't replace these three with Townshend. BartBassist (talk) 22:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results
Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content
Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Carthage and Australia in Palestine
Op-ed: Remembering 9/11

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 18:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello John K! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results
Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content
Book reviews: Nick-D and Ian Rose look at Australian air power
Op-ed: Buggie111 ruminates about WikiLife and WikiDeath

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 02:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results
Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content
Book reviews: Nick-D analyzes three books from Osprey Publishing
Review essay: Nick-D reviews the new Bundeswehr Military History Museum

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 08:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors – MHotY coming; contest results
Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content
Book reviews: Nick-D looks at the Congolese Wars
Review essay: Ian Rose goes to El Alamein
Op-ed: DCI's call to revitalize WikiProject History

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Perry

Check out my reply on the Journey talk page. Dave Golland (talk) 04:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Roman Empire

Happy New Year! Could you please help out by commenting here? It's the old debate, who was the first Holy Roman Emperor, Charlamagne or Otto. Do you know the authoritative mainstream sources i.e. who are the real expert historians who have addressed this? I think the article would be more stable if we have better (and more recent) sources. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 16:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Nightwatch (album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael McDonald (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Military Historian of the Year

Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results
Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content
Book reviews: Nick-D Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books
Review essay: Kirill Lokshin, the first coordinator
Op-ed: Hchc's English Castles

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MSU Interview

Dear John K,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results
Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content
Book reviews: Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books
Op-ed: Ian Rose discusses article assessments

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 10:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Goderich

I've lately been editing F. J. Robinson, 1st Viscount Goderich, of which I see you are the principal editor. If you cared to give the article as it now stands the once-over and amend ad lib it would be esteemed a favour. Best wishes. Tim riley (talk) 20:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

Greetings. Llywrch suggested you might be a good person to contact about participating in a peer review on the Josephus on Jesus article. Please take a look if you have time. Ignocrates (talk) 15:46, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of John Joyce

The article John Joyce has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not appear to be notable; see move discussion on talk page

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Schwede66 20:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are a rather experienced editor. Believe me, I don't like prodding articles that were created by editors who have been around for a long time and have a huge amount of experience. Maybe the chap is notable; I just can't see it the way the article is written. Schwede66 20:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The bio you cite at the afd should be mentioned or used as a ref in the article, or some other referencing should be used. The article in it's present state is decently done from a style standpoint, but needs refs. INeverCry 22:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

R&N Userbox

Hello, John K! You can add the new userbox for the Royalty & Nobility taskforce, {{User WikiProject Royalty and Nobility}}, to your userpage! - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 11:51, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Senators

You brought up a good point about the order of Senators. Therefore, I've changed a couple articles to list the Senators explicitly by seniority. —GoldRingChip 15:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting at the Bratislava article's talk page

Hi,

Since you've shown some interest about the naming convention for Bratislava in the past, you might want to take a look at the recent development there (especially the part where PANONIAN suggests the complete removal of all but the modern Slovak name of the city). Thank you -- CoolKoon (talk) 20:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:4th Duke of Marlborough.JPG listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:4th Duke of Marlborough.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 13

Hi. When you recently edited William Pinkney, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James A. Bayard (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Presidents of Arab Republic of Somalia

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as Presidents of Arab Republic of Somalia, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Runehelmet (talk) 12:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "John Donne". Thank you! — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 05:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Question

Hello John K!

You have been recommended for me by another user, who think that you may be able and willing to answer some questions of historical facts that I have, and as you write on your presentation that you are willing to answer questions, I hope that you would be willing to do so for mine.

My questions are as follows.

Question 1: If a married nobleman would like to acknowledge his illegitimate children in 1730s France, would that give them any rights? By acknowledging, I do not mean legitimizing them: I rather mean just admitting that he is their father. Louis XIV officially recognized his children with Madame de Montespan, and it seems that they were some paperwork. So my question is: was there some sort of legal procedure for a man who wished to recognize his fatherhood, any paperwork of some kind? Or was the acknowledgement simply an informal affair with no other consequences than informal social ones?

Question 2: The 1730s was a period when the law was different for nobles and non-nobles. Did an acknowledged illegitimate child have more rights, if both of the parents were noble?

Question 3: During this period, adult unmarried women were placed under guardianship under nearest male relative, I believe? Who was the legal guardian of an acknowledged illegitimate daughter, after the death of her parents? Was it the legitimate son of her father, her half brother?

I hope that you are able to answer my questions, or perhaps give me an educated guess? Thank you in advance! --Aciram (talk) 18:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply and your tip. When it comes to the third question, though, I suspect that the law would not differ so much between times or countries in Europa before the mid 19th century? How was the law in general about the guardianship over illegitimate daughters in Europe? Had they no guardians?

As it seem that your speciality is the 19th century, perhaps I can take the opportunity to ask a different question; about 19th-century Russia. I assume unmarried adult women were placed under guardianship there regardless of age, as they seem to have been in all countries in Europe with the exception of Great Britain. The European countries reformed their laws and removed the guardianship of unmarried women in the second half of the 19th-century. Was it the same for Russia? When did Russia abolish the guardianship of unmarried women? I assume in cirka 1900? --Aciram (talk) 19:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Thank you for your reply. If you know of any wikipedians with this expertise, please feel free to give me a tip! Greetings--Aciram (talk) 00:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

question from a descendent of George I

Hello, John K. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Care to?

So, you have changed the names of roughly 15 of my close ancestors. Good, I'll be returning them to the correct form when I can be bothered to do so. Your assertion that double-barrelled names did not exist in the 17th c. is ludicrous, although fair enough that they seem to have been formalised in the 19th c. but only after long common usage in Great Britain and Ireland, never mind the rest of Europe. There's one other thing also, that WP in general fails to grasp, is that Peers do not 'have' a surname, rather they are known by the name of their fief, and it is their kin who possess the surname thereunto. Brendandh (talk) 22:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone on Talk:Duke of Hamilton appears to have disagreed with you about this. My moves have made these article titles in compliance with Complete Peerage, with Cracroft's Peerage, and for the most part with the ODNB. You have provided no sources, except the names on your ancestors' portraits at Lennoxlove House, to back your point. And please provide an example of another supposed double barreled surname in the 17th century. I have not seen a single source which says that William Douglas changed his surname to "Douglas-Hamilton," rather than to just "Hamilton." So far as I can tell, all the best sources show every duke through the 11th with the surname of simply "Hamilton." There seems to be some dispute about the 12th duke - his sister seems to have definitely remained Hamilton, his brother to have become Douglas-Hamilton, and sources disagree on him. All dukes since the 13th have certainly been "Douglas-Hamilton." If you have reliable sources to add to this, please do, but you can't revert these moves on the grounds that you know best without having any sources supporting your case. 130.91.119.121 (talk) 23:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC) [ETA - that was me of course. john k (talk) 23:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)][reply]

If you need a Scottish example to show that peers do have a surname, in 1836 the Duke of Richmond and Lennox was granted "His Majesty's royal licence and authority that he and his issue may, in testimony of respect for the noble family of Gordon, henceforth assume, take, and use the surname of Gordon, in addition to, and before his and their own family surname of Lennox" (my emphasis). "No. 19409". The London Gazette. 12 August 1836. Opera hat (talk) 00:30, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there's plenty of examples like that. Peers certainly do have surnames, even if they don't normally use them. 98.111.161.5 (talk) 03:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Military history coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 09:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Dear John K

I noticed the improvements you have made to wiki pages for various military figures. I wonder If you could help improve the following wiki article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Palmes

I am new to this, so have little experience.

Would be so grateful for your expertise.

Cheers,

Steve patterson 123 (talk) 12:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hello John K! I recently posted this question on the reference desk:[[11]] Is this field of knowledge within your expertise? Please feel free to answer! Best wishes--Aciram (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited In Our Time (book), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Out of Season (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Country data Habsburg Monarchy > flag|Habsburg Monarchy

Hi, on Template:Country data Habsburg Monarchy, the flag of the Habsburg Monarchy is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Banner_of_the_Holy_Roman_Emperor_%28after_1400%29.svg
rather than the following one :
http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=File:Flag_of_the_Habsburg_Monarchy.svg&page=1
Could you please replace it ? Thanks Hippo75 (talk) 11:54, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

1832 in literature (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Le Colonel Chabert

1833 in literature (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ferragus

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Humphrey Marshall (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peter II of Yugoslavia recognised as 'King of Serbia' by the Nedic government?

Hello John K;

I noticed on the page "State Leaders in 1942"; that you added information (in 2005) pertaining to the collaborationist puppet government of Milan Nedic in Serbia acting in the name of King Petar II and Petar II being officially recognised as 'King of Serbia'. I was wondering if you had any sources as regards this; as I have only been able to find a handful; and these are inconclusive as regards to whether this was the case or not.

Yours,

JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 20:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any sources to hand. This was my understanding, but it's possible I was wrong. Remove it if you like. john k (talk) 21:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In actual fact I'm leaning towards that being the case; I just need more sources. You must have got that notion from somewhere; I'm curious as to where :-)JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 21:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to say; it was seven years ago. john k (talk) 23:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paul Schneider (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elephants

Please take this as a great compliment. --Dweller (talk) 16:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited BuzzFeed, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ben Smith (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New U.S. legislative data project

Hi there, John K! I'm working with a group of Wikipedians on a Legislative Data Workshop to explore ways of using legislative data to enhance Wikipedia, and since it's a subject area you've been active with, I figured you might like to know of it. We've set up a provisional WikiProject at Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Federal Government Legislative Data (WP:LEGDATA) where we're developing new ideas, so if you'd like to offer your views or help out, we'd love to have you join! Cheers, WWB (talk) 18:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mansur Ali Khan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Najafi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Thatcher and Post-Nominal PC

Hello, Just to let you know I undid an [edit] you made to Margaret Thatcher. Your reason for your edit said "No PC until she becomes a Baroness". This is not accurate as the post-nominal "PC" is granted when a person is sworn in to Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council and has nothing to do with being a Member of the Peerage. If you have any questions or believe that I am in error, let me know,

Cheers, Mate, King of Nothing (talk) 02:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at the article "Privy Council of the United Kingdom" and it also incorrectly states that PC is not used unless a person is a British Peer; however, it uses as its source an article that talks about the Privy Council of New Zealand (as a Member of the New Zealand Privy Council would not be entitled to PC unless they are also a British Peer, which is true). My source is Debrett's, and you can't get much more accurate than that. However, I have neither the time nor the inclination to fix the now numerous instances of inaccurate use of the PC Post-nominal. Feel free to change it back if you wish. Or if you have the time, research whether PC is officially granted when a person is a Member of the British Privy Council and not a Peer (Even Debrett's says "In a social style of address for a peer who is a Privy Counsellor it is advisable that the letters PC should follow the name. For all other Members of the Privy Council the pre-fix 'Rt Hon' before the name is sufficient identification." However, it is still proper for all Members to have PC). If you would like to research and make the necessary changes then Thank You. And if not then sorry to bother you. Either Way, Cheers Mate. With Thanks, <<As Always>>, King of Nothing (talk) 03:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is obvious nonsense from the top as there is no such thing as a "Privy Council of New Zealand". Your sentence "However, it is still proper for all Members to have PC" is your own conclusion based on nothing at the source. In fact, the language quoted points to precisely the opposite. The second sentence is an explanation of why the post-nominals aren't used for non-peers. And even if it weren't a hard and fast rule, it is the pervasive usage at Wikipedia. -Rrius (talk) 04:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to bother arguing about whether "PC" should be used for the first line of articles, when, for whatever stupid reason, Wikipedia has decreed that we can't use "Rt. Hon." before the person's name. Fine, use it then if you must, although it would be far better to use all the British honorific prefixes. But it absolutely should not be used in any case where "the Rt. Hon." is present, as in the "styles and titles" section or the infobox. john k (talk) 04:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Adullamites, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Samuel Laing (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Edward Smith-Stanley, 14th Earl of Derby, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Wood (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion notice

You participated in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#RFC-birth date format conformity when used to disambiguate so I thought you might want to comment at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#Birth date format conformity .28second round.29.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:05, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Philadelphia Wiki-Picnic: Saturday, June 22

	Philadelphia's Great American Wiknic at Penn Park
	You are invited to the Philadelphia edition of the Great American Wiknic taking place in Penn Park, on Saturday, June 22, 2013! We would love to see you there!--User:Ocaasi (talk)\|}}

About your doubt of the dual conference affiliation membership of the University of Rochester

About your doubt of the dual conference affiliation membership of the University of Rochester, did you try yet what I suggested, which was to ask the university's athletics department? jlog3000 (talk) 12:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. Real life prevents full engagement in Wikipedia issues on occasion. Someone should do it, though! john k (talk) 12:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you like, I'll try to investigate on your behalf and mine. jlog3000 (talk) 13:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of American television series, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conan the Adventurer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Articles deletion

Dear John K,

I apologize for the inconvenience, but have no other way than appealing for administrators’ help recover a deleted article.

I published a film article entitled Drits (Derivas), a film by Portuguese director Ricardo Costa. It is the second film from an autobiographic trilogy, Faraways. The article was kept untouched by several months. To my surprise, it was recently eliminated and redirected to the director’s page with no discussion. I undid the redirection, but saw the article was proposed to deletion. Reason: independent, verifiable, secondary resources. I argued that the article couldn’t have but primary sources (the producer’s ones) as it is an upcoming film, like many others listed at upcoming films. A film that has not yet been premiered or distributed may not be commented. Besides, none of the films so listed has ever been deleted or even contested.

At last, in discussion, user User:reddogsix proposed that the article should be renamed to Drifts (film) or similar, and at the same time put at the disambiguation page of Dritf this reference «Drifs, unreleased film by Ricardo Costa (filmmaker). I created a new page for the same article entitled Drifts (Portuguese film). As the semantic root “drift” seemed to be the problem, I replaced the article name to Derivas (Drifts) and published it once more with some improvements. As a result, the article was fast deleted and I blocked for three days.

In the meantime, a new article about the trilogy was published: Faraways, which was proposed to fast deletion as well by the same user, User:reddogsix.

Although unreleased, although having no reliable secondary sources, Drifts is unquestionably an outstanding film for its uniqueness and characteristics: autobiography, comedy, docufiction, metafiction in one. I guess that “outstanding” may be a synonym for “notable” in such cases and that articles like this shouldn’t be deleted without previous cared analyses: important information may be lost.

This sequence of interventions is clearly a personal attack by User:reddogsix, supported by two or three user friend. It has no other explanation. It contributes in nothing to improve articles quality. Mists article, which I created on 10 September 2010, is the latest example. The article structure was unreasonably modified, loosing clarity and useful content.

NOTE: sent to 30 administrators.

Thanks for your attention, User:Tertulius 21:50, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edited your comment

Hi John,

I just wanted to drop you a note to let you know that I edited your comment to try to make it a little clearer which position you were taking.

If you disagree with this edit, let me know, and I'll undo it immediately! NickCT (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removing duplicate vital articles

Hi John, since you've been one of the most active contributors lately I thought I'd ask you for a favour. Tonight I'll be closing all discussions more than 15 days old; could you check out Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded#Business and Economics and vote for the two duplicated articles that have been proposed for removal? Thanks, Cobblet (talk) 22:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't duplicates just be removed without a vote? john k (talk) 22:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Phimosis

You made a comment to WT:NOT some time ago about the illustration in Phimosis. I made a response there, and implemented it with a cropped image (presently as CSS). Do you think this reasonably addresses the issue? Wnt (talk) 06:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill ^[talk] 17:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of state leaders in 1520, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Palatinate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GLAM Cafe invitation

Wikipedians are invited to the GLAM Café at the Chemical Heritage Foundation to meet, talk, and edit. We provide the space, the coffee, and the snacks: you provide ideas and enthusiasm! On the second Tuesday of each month, starting November 12, 2013.

Marcus Aemilius Lepidus (49 BC) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Marcus Aemilius Lepidus (49 BC). Since you had some involvement with the Marcus Aemilius Lepidus (49 BC) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. BDD (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

List of Assyrian kings (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Belus, Babylonian, Naram-Sin and Cephalion

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1418

In 2002, you added that the Siege of Rouen started in September, but what I'm finding says it instead started in July. I thought I'd let you know I'm editing it to July, in case you know something that I don't. --TripleU (talk) 18:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yacht Rock, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Steve Perry. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the Military history Wikiproject's Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards are now open!

The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Voting for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year now open!

Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators, TomStar81

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your thoughts?

Timeline of Philadelphia has a discussion about selection and inclusion criteria. Two editors are discussing it, but we have divergent views. More opinions would be helpful. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from fixing things that are not actually wrong

I notice you moved a bunch of the articles on members of the House of Savoy to new titles. Please do not do this. The succession of Kings of Sardinia is always Victor Amadeus II -- Charles Emmanuel III -- Victor Amadeus III -- Charles Emmanuel IV -- Victor Emmanuel I. It is completely irrelevant that there was no Victor Amadeus I or Charles Emmanuel I or Charles Emmanuel II who was king of Sardinia. Note that the same process continued after Victor Emmanuel II became King of Italy - he remained Victor Emmanuel II, even though Victor Emmanuel I never reigned over Italy. The titles you moved the articles to are quite literally ones that nobody has ever used. Monarchical numbering is based on actual usage, not logic. Please leave them alone, or at least open a discussion about them rather than just moving them on your own. john k (talk) 20:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly review WP:BEBOLD. If there's an issue, you bring it up.

Now you have and, while I honestly don't care enough to go fight it out with you as long as there are redirects from the correct names, you're utterly wrong. The succession of Kings of Sardinia starts the numbers over again, while they are usually called after their styles as Counts of Savoy. Victor Amadeus II of Savoy is Victor Amadeus I of Sardinia; Vicky 2 of Sardinia is an entirely different person. The article should explain that, which I did, but presumably you're restoring the misinformation. That's a bad thing, but it was always a misfortune that the Savoyard punks ended up winning out in Italy and I probably won't bother going through the process of fixing your mistakes a second time.

Do feel encouraged to go learn from your mistakes, though. Being rude, condescending, and wrong is a pretty assholish and unfortunate way to go through life. — LlywelynII 02:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you are right, provide some sources, then. The vast majority of English language sources use Victor Amadeus II - Charles Emmanuel III - Victor Amadeus III - Charles Emmanuel IV. From what I can gather, so do the vast majority of Italian sources. The numbering you use isn't entirely unheard of, but it is quite rare. If you're going to move articles from the titles that they have had, by consensus, for over a decade, it's up to you to provide support for your position rather than just being condescending. john k (talk) 05:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Europäische Stammtafeln

Hello,

You did a recent edit on Europäische Stammtafeln and your edit included some changes to the "Current volume names" and descriptions. Many changes I agree make things easier to read, but changing the actual official name and descriptions given by the authors is another thing.

I had used a copy/paste for the names and descriptions. I also used an open/close bracket to clarify some items which did not change the given name and descriptions.

If you have a chance, please review your last edit on the article. I was tempted to revert, but I know you did the edit in good faith. And it does read better! Again I am concerned about what was given by the authors of the series and what was changed for readability.

Jrcrin001 (talk) 02:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS I see I also used an equal sign followed by a brief translation at the end on a line. Jrcrin001 (talk)

No. I cited the title and description by copy and paste. After the equal sign is mine and what is between the open/close brackets is also mine. I had forgotten the basic translation after the equal sign on my first message. Jrcrin001 (talk) 03:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. My German is more than rusty. I grew up on Sud Deutsch but what is not used is too often lost. Thanks! Jrcrin001 (talk) 03:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join the Ten Year Society

Dear John,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more. It's always nice stumbling across another old-timer.

Best regards, — Scott • talk 12:22, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Maria Clementina Sobieska, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jacobite. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion for 1864 Republican National Convention

An article that you have been involved in editing—1864 Republican National Convention —has been proposed for merging with 1864 National Union National Convention. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. older ≠ wiser 18:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll on the use of The Rt. Hon.

Hello. I have created a straw poll on whether The Right Honourable should be used in infoboxes for all Barons, Viscounts and Earls or just for Privy Counsellors. The poll is here. I wish that you could give your opinion there and maybe comment. --Editor FIN (talk) 05:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of state leaders in 1718, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Salm and Palatinate. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject historian and newcomer of the year awards now open!

On behalf of the Military history WikiProject's Coordinators, we would like to extend an invitation to nominate deserving editors for the 2015 Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards. The nomination period will run from 7 December to 23:59 13 December, with the election phase running from 14 December to 23:59 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chief Ministers of England

You noted a while back that this page was a mess. It still is, although I have made a preliminary attempt to tidy the section post-1660. Any thoughts? LookLook36 (talk) 02:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As you noted at Talk:First Rochester ministry, the Chits Ministry should really be combined. There is a draft here. LookLook36 (talk) 17:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see people are still looking at things! Your version looks better, definitely, in both cases! john k (talk) 19:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I'll be bold and create it at Ministry of the Chits. LookLook36 (talk) 21:35, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Join us this Saturday (July 30) at the Philadelphia Wiknic

Join us this Saturday (July 30) at the Philadelphia Wiknic, the "picnic anyone can edit". This is an opportunity to meet other local Wikipedians, have fun, and discuss potential projects.

The event is this Saturday, between 1pm-5pm at the Picnic Grove in Penn Park.

(To unsubscribe from future messages, remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiProject Philadelphia/Philadelphia meet-up invite list.)

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:21, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Roman And Byzantine Military History

Hello I currently have a project known as the Roman and Byzantine military history page Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Incubator/Roman and Byzantine Military History, I was wondering if you would like to join, as youve shown interest in italian history. Iazyges (talk) 19:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Chatham ministry

added a link pointing to Charles Saunders

First Rockingham ministry

added a link pointing to William Dowdeswell

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rockingham Whigs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Dowdeswell. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rockingham Whigs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George II. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, John K. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi John K.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, John K. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page.

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, John K. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert Asquith listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Herbert Asquith. Since you had some involvement with the Herbert Asquith redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. --Nevé –selbert 18:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for the Military history WikiProject Historian and Newcomer of the Year is ending soon!

Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

March Madness 2017

G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:

tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actor names in plot summaries

Thanks for voicing your opinion on this issue. I didn't join in, as I've already spoken my piece in similar discussions, and I agree completely that it's annoying to be forced to refer to a separate "cast" section, rather than simply reading the actor's name in the synopsis. But you know as well as I that once two or three editors find themselves in agreement on an issue, they will assume the rest of the world agrees with them and declare a "consensus", regardless of any reasoned arguments to the contrary. That, in my view, is one of WP's basic flaws -- no one in charge, just the alleged wisdom of crowds. Sometimes it's a good thing, but most times it sucks badly. Oh, well. Cheers, DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 17:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It feels like Wikipedia has hardened a lot in the last several years, partly just because it feels like no one's around except people who have a vested interest in the status quo. It's become almost impossible to change anything. john k (talk) 01:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to apologize for my revert, I didn't notice that you already had started a discussion on the talk page. In any case, I'll leave it as the M:WRONGVERSION until it can be sorted out.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 07:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Newburgh, New York (disambiguation)

A tag has been placed on Newburgh, New York (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 00:36, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of battle 601-1400 listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of battle 601-1400. Since you had some involvement with the List of battle 601-1400 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 09:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of battles 1400 BC-1400 listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of battles 1400 BC-1400. Since you had some involvement with the List of battles 1400 BC-1400 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 09:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to Admin confidence survey

Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Military history WikiProject Coordinator election

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Slow down now

Please stop and discuss this issue before going around making edits without consensus. I discussed my moves with RGloucester and he agreed with them. Please stop and discuss and WP:AGF. There was no need to be rude and for a person with your credentials such behaviour is entirely unbecoming.--Nevé –selbert 17:10, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a link to where you discussed this so I can read the arguments? And making hundreds of ignorant edits with literally no reliable sources to back you up is also rude. john k (talk) 17:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No you are the one being uncouth and assuming bad faith for no good reason. Compose yourself and come round to discussing this issue. Launch an RFC if you must. Just act like an administrator and understand that I acted in good faith out of an effort to implement consistency across the ministry articles. It took me weeks on end and I hardly slept trying to sort these ministries out and for you to assume bad faith for no good reason is just completely disgusting. I am shocked at your unbelievable attitude, I really am.--Nevé –selbert 17:19, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are acting in good faith, but you're spreading nonsense in the name of "consistency." Wikipedia's job is to reflect reliable sources, not to impose our own notion of "consistency" on what the sources do. Again: do you have a link to where you discussed making these changes? john k (talk) 17:21, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This past June, I wrote the following to Mr Selbert: "I understand that you desire consistency, but there are exceptions, and these particular articles are some of them. We can't create a consistency that doesn't exist". He would've done wise to adhere to what I said. I am no longer a contributor here, and I will make no further comment on this subject. Please do not ping me any further. RGloucester — ☎ 17:24, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)

It's been a long time!

Lord Forbes

Formal warning

Holy Roman Empire

Louis XV

You're invited!

Re: wiki takes philadelphia

Personal attacks

personal page

WikiProject Novels - August 2009 Newsletter

Re your second complaint

Egyptian chronology

OR and apologies

Suggested reading on OR

MoS

Anglicanism on List of Christian Denominations

Proposal

Attorney General for England and Wales

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

Rita Jenrette sourcing issues and claimed titles

universities & nationalism

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)

Mention of "Romania" in the lead of the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire article

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!

Talkpage of 'Parthian Empire'

"ref name"

MILHIST admins

Wikipedia Takes Philadelphia

Mysore and Coorg FAC

Request for peer review

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)

Visit me?

East German FMs

Mr. President

Sourcing

action needed

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)

Your edit on George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron

File:Graham Greene.jpg listed for deletion

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)

Unreferenced BLPs

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)

Scope of British government pages

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)

Memphis

Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom GA review

Sporcle

Evangelical Church in Germany

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)

Talkback

You're invited to Wikipedia Takes Philadelphia

Discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title

Coordinator elections have opened!

Monarchy of Canada -- your opinion sought

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)

favor

AfD nomination of William Cavendish, 5th Duke of Devonshire

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)

Emperor Dom Pedro II of Brazil peer review

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)

You've Been Mentioned

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)

King James

AUSTRIA-HUNGARY IN WW1

Blablaaa

Rioni of the City of Rome

Alternate Succession.....

WQA

RFC on cities proper list

Vandalism Warning

Grand Duchy of Tuscany

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)

About Tavolara

Spanish Empire map

Monarchial titles for articles

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIV (August 2010)